search_plans

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for 'past implementation approaches, decisions, and patterns,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Search Claude Code plan files for past implementation approaches, decisions, and patterns') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent has incomplete context for effective tool invocation, though the schema provides good parameter coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (query, limit, detail_level) with descriptions, defaults, and an enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or detail-level implications. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Claude Code plan files for past implementation approaches, decisions, and patterns.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Claude Code plan files'), and target content ('implementation approaches, decisions, and patterns'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_conversations' or 'find_tool_patterns,' which might have overlapping search domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_conversations' or 'find_tool_patterns,' nor does it specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.